Liturgy and Literature in the Making of Protestant England
Timothy Rosendale
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 237 p.
Was the English Reformation a religious process or a political event? Was reform
of the Church forcibly imposed from above or did it percolate upwards from below?
Did the consent of individual subjects signif’ acceptance or was centralized author
ity the ultimately decisive factor? And was the process swift or slow? Historians of
the Reformation have debated these questions heatedly for decades. G. R. Elton and
M. Aston are for swift from above. A. C. Dickens, C. Cross, and D. MaCulloch argue
for swift from below. P. Collinson maintains slow from below while Scarishrick,
C. Haigh and E. 1)uffr insist upon slow to very slow (and never popular) from
above. For a long time the interpretation of the English Reformation has been
dominated b a seemingly “zero—sum struggle between the lingering inlhieiice of
Whig historiograph and its revisionist critics, with the latter in recent years tend
ing to dominate the field. Some continue to portray the Reformation as religiously
and politically progressive while others defend the late—medieval church as vital and
widel popular. The singular merit of limotbv Rosendale’s incisive study of the cru—
cial position of the Book of Common Prover in the cultural life of early—modern Eng
land is to cut through this historiographical onundriim of either—or. and to
propose in its place an innovative and highl perst1asie attempt at a dialectical svn—
thesis of these Lmtll)lesonle contraries.
.
(‘omptes iendtis
193
Re ieu s of books
I lie central laim 01 R endales l,lun,rv iind li/c r’ituie , I/n fiking o “ml i’ hi eath —t akin in its in itninalisni: Eilih hist )I fi( )fl tlìe in id—six—
iinI
teenih ihimigh the ite—seventeent h centui ics centres on the Bink i (.onimon Prover”
25). K aiiv measure this is t most reniarkable pu posal. and the argullient put br—
ward ii its I:Is our is at met’ bri haiit. ti idite and persklasn C .\ro iidmg to Rosendale.
the Fiiglish Relorniatu in ‘sas “sinttltaneottslv a ci titi1 and toercise exercise of
state piiwet and a hon ontal distiihtition of pohtital irit1 religious authori (3)
which must be v ievsed as both tp—doss ii” and bottoni—up. Religious teforni sub—
jet ted the l’riglisii people to new, highly centralized, and hiet arc hical structures of
authorit and, at the aine time, ackinas iedgt’d these same subjt’t ts as autonomous.
Rosciidale offers the )ath of Supreni:ic as an ilisianee of dialectical synthesis in
the expansion of (oei (fl t’ j)O’% F OVCF iiidivitiiiil subjects am! t lie sitiiitltane nis val—
iclatioti of indi idual atitonninv ovt’i against such ei in a(iIIliilistenng the iath
e.g.. to More anti Fisher) the state ieqitiretl uim ersal sttbiuissioii b’ iiitli i(huials to
the constituted authority (ii the realm: vet to (leliiail(l srn ii an oath also coiiiained
the even more radRal iiiiplicanon that the consent of the individual subject to the
established order itself signified. A critical consequence of Reldi niatiori was that the
spheres of the pris ate and the public came to he flinch more sliarpir defined over
against each other, and at the same time more tightl bound together. For Rosendale
the Book uJ (.onimon Prover, a long—neglected locus of hterarv studs, provides an
invaluable liermeneutical ke to iin(lerstailching this subtle negotiation 1)1 the
opposed i. laiins of collective and mlivmdual identities. “The B( P helped hi igiand
to navigate the cultural crisis of the Rehrmation by enfi-anchisimig tlìe e angclkal
subject. and bs estiil)lis[iing a iwnt dialectic in which the authority, and thus
the identit (if nation and intlividtial are mutually colisnttinng 19).” [he paradox
ical tension between a radically inward Protestant subjectivity on the one haiicl,
and the a[)solutist, centralizing hierarchical order of the early—modern nation on
the other, is worked out “henneneutically” and “svnthesi7ed” in the liturgy of the
Pra erhook, A key methodological prenlise here is that religion constitutes the
“fhuiidational matrix and primary language” of early modernity. ( )r. as Brian (Sum—
miligs receiitlv :usserte(l. “without reference to religion, the study of early modern
writing is incomprehensible. Roseiidales 1)00k renders this judgment all the inure
corn ilicing.
lhe first half (chuipters 1 and 2 of Rosetidales study addresses the Praverbook
from ti-ic two stafl(lpoiflts of del mug Fiiglands c mniiion national i(lentitv and t lie
i(leiitit’ of individual stubjec ts. Ihe second half (cliaptel s 3 and 4) explores o inflicts
between church and state, individuals and political order. authorit and interpre
tation, in relation to s o literary pail ings. namely Sidney and Shakespeare, Milton
and Hobbes. Sulnev and Milton exemplify the working out of the mdiv icluahiting
implications of Protest:uiitism, is bile Shakespeare and I lobbes represent the attempt
to clefimue cotimniuinal i(lelutitv and authority, All four are shown o be profoundly
i ul(hei)i cc! in one way or aliol her to I lie hermeneum lit- enibodie(l in the Boiik o/ (.‘oni—
mi) n Pin ver.
.\gain’.t tilt’ I ciitm,mh iei isionist t iiesis that I lie ci angclicul lOgic of Protes—
tantisiui was mtnlnsi( ally fragmenting, that tile Reformation in effect destroyed
I’ ngla nds traclitiomial sense (>1 t ohiesion and tout niunal order, Rosendale argues
that the B( P ‘a as the foundation of a i er pott’n olle tiv e religious identity,
and that the miew Ii nut gv ‘a as the “text umal in (ci hut e” whit h shaped and coti in died
[ii!,,
—
‘
‘
-
194
Studies in Religion
Siences Religierises 35 I 2009
the subjects experience of that order. In place of the multiple and aried lituri,i—
cal “uses of Salisbury, Hereford, Bangor. Thrk, and Lincoln,’ there ‘,sas to he hut One
homogeneous use for the hole realm, to he used by ui
1 individuals ol the realm.
I he Preflice to die BCP associates di ersitv ithi the old religion. unifoitnitv ,iiid
national cohesion ‘ ith the new. Ilie new unihumitv, moreover, is in the eiiiau—
hun-. thlI% ‘10 longer (lix iding the learned from the lay. (her against the opacit and
concealment of latin usage, ernacitlarisni with its eniphasis on accessibility and
comprehensibiht serves to consolidate a common religious identit’,. Ihe nation itself
is constituted as one b regillal; common and uniform “textual engagement” (i.e.,
worship and rea(Iing the sriptures). As Rosendale points out. “tire only regular and
nationally uniform experience of the English language until the advent of radio s as
the BCP and the English l,i1)le. In short the BCP defines England as distinct and
autonomous politically, religiously an(i linguistically. As Hooker put it in his defence
of the commonality of prayer. “the ser ice which we clue as members of a publique
bodie, is publique. and for that cause must needs be accompted by so much wor
thier then the other; as a whole societie of such condition exceedeth the worth of
anie one of its members’ (L(nie.’, V24). Vet, at the same time, through its evangel
ical doctrine the BCP reinforces the immediacy of the relationship between the
soul and (,od, and thus actively upholds the private sphere of individual subjecti e
identity.
For Rosendale, the differing logics of Catholic and Protestant sorship are most
clearly manifest iii their (listinct accounts of sacramental theology. Whereas the
doctrine of the slass and transubstantiation tended to collapse the distinction
between signifier and signified in their assertion of an objectified “real presence,”
the BCP liturgy reasserts (iii Augustirrian fashion) a sharp distinction between the
two .According to John Jewels critique of transubstantiation in his “Challenge Ser
mon” of 1559, “first we put a difference between the sign and the thing itself that
is signified.” This distiuiction between a literal and figurative interpretation of
sacramental “presence” is of crucial significance for the emergence of a distinc
tively Protestant hermeneutics. The liturgy of the revised BCP of 1552 very dcci
siveiv shifts the focus of “presence away from the elements of the sacrament (“Hoc
est corpus meum” iii the 01(1 rite), and transfers it to the inner; subjective experi—
mice of the worshipper (“ Like and eat this in remembrance
feed on him in thy
heart, by faith, with thanksgiving.”) Consequently, “presence’ is interpreted in the
BCP as a “ligural,” a conceptual synthesis of word and elements perfornied in the
subjective ftwum of the minds of worshippers. and thus inseparable from reception
of the host. (It is interesting iii this connection to note that in the BCP of 1552. as
vell as in the sIIl)sequent reVisions of 1559 and 1662, the adrnimiistration of the
communion occurs at precisely the stage in the liturgy at is hich the des ation of the
host had pres iously occurred—i.e., the moment of transubstantiation—thus serv
ing to underline vividly the difference between the two divergent liturgical accounts
of’ presence.) the chasm betis ecu sign arid signified is thus bridged not iii an exter—
rial tlieurgical act. hut iather iii an inner uhjeetive act of renienibrarice. s Roseridale
points out. ‘the iiiternahiiatioti of this ligural sacrament is tints a riecessarik inter—
l)retutiie act; though it takes place in a (ommnulial context, it tilt imatelv requires ii
highly individual niode of understanding the elements as metaphors whose elfec—
trrahitv is dependent on buthful pet sonal reading 96). CarefIrl students of the his—
u u’i of the Book (If ( ornnnln Pi a’ei v ill no d oiht be ai’ are t hat i he El itahet han
‘
‘
.. .
Re ies s of books
( oinptes rendus
1 95
ision 01 I )39 altered the strict1 /a’ i iglian memor ialist oi (Is of administration
with “Do this in remembrance
of 1a2 I) conihining the words I his is nn lxxiv
of rne” Rather than taking the usual line that this mo e represents a via lvi din mud
dle, Rosemlale portra s the 1559 re ision as e en more radical than its 1352 pred—
ecessor. ‘ bile it is cci tainls the case that assertion of the “figural sense” of the
Fric harist, and hence (>1 the distinction between signifier and sivnifiecl, is a key con—
cern of tire Protestant reformer s—and thus one might well be tempted to regard
the strict meinor ialisni of 1532 as setting the benchmark of the high reformed posi
tion—in his dist inch e and highh original reading, Rosendale argues that 1559
emphasizes e en more strongls the miportance of the role of the individual sub—
jet t in interpreting the meaning of the sacrament, By defusing the clarit of 1552,
the Elizabet iran compromise on the words of administration serves to extend een
further the latitude of the worshipper’s hermeneutical responsibility. 1 he
hermeneritic is all! I he BCP in both form and content holds in tension twc) rad—
icalh different cliscourstm, out of which it endea ours to construct a pruductie tex
tual s nthesis, It disc ursi clv constructs the Christian nation characterized centrah1
b order e en as it ele ates indi idual disc r etion over that order. Its theo1og
simultaneoush legitimates and undermines its political discourse of autonomous
hierarchical audior ity. The B( P officially instituted the individual as a ritv
component of religion, without abrogating the normative claims of the hier archi—
cal socio—politico—e clesiastical order that had traditionally been the sole cletermi—
nant of i eligious affairs” 1 111).
F’or Rosendale, the Praverhook’s deliberate use of “figural representation
combined with the demand that all individual worshippers read the Scriptures crit—
icahlv—”hear read, mark, learn, and mw ardlv digest” as Cranmer’s Advent Collect
has it—served to cfftxt nothing less than “the literar flowering of the English
Renaissance.” Rosendale aims to trace a deeper and broader route of cultural coil“
...‘
“
..
sequence from Refurmation to Renaissance, from liturgy and theology to literary
theory and practice. Sidney’s Defence of Poetry arid Shakespeare’s histort pla s
embody the hermeneittical revolution blazed by the BCP 1hus, 1)0th the sacra—
nient as interpreted by Cranmer’s liturgy and the Sidneian poetic require the
hermeneutic of “figural understanding” as a decisive means of bridging the gap
between sign and signified. Without the Praerbook’s recasting of semiotics, the flow
ering of the English Renaissance may very well not have come to pass. B means
of the order of worship according to the rites and ceremonies of the BCP, the Eng
lish Refortnation substituted belief in the power of representations and their inter
pretation to defuire the human relation to the divine in place of belief in the
immanent externalized sacramental presence of God in the Host. Ihe grand terms
of reference for I 7th—century discourse on the balance between the competing
claims of hierarc hical order mcl individual autonomy are worked out ith signifi—
cant reference to tire B( P. Yet the BCP shows itself unable to contain this conflict.
I he (.k il ar itself is defined in terms of two parties with diametrically opposed
positions on the form of public pra Cr. F1r I lobbes, the problem was not the ac es—
sibility of the vernacular Bible, but rather the multiplication of interpreters and the
threat to the common order this multiplication implied. Milton, on the other hand,
clenommnces liturg itself as inherently “evil.” Iii these two representati\es and in of
the conflict of c h il war Rosenclale prc’selits the collapse of the dialectical s nthesis
of irl(livi(lrial antI order.
196
Studies in Religion Science’, Religieuses 38 1 2009
Ihere is a civ small bitt. hernteneuticallv consi(Iere(l, cry ignilicaiit typo—
graphical ermr to which I must di aw attention (if only to underscore I)r Rosendales
point concerning the ettormous i iterpietati\ e seight of liturgical language). in
the ( )rder fur the .\dininistration of the Lords Supper in the 1Cl prayers ale
utlered for the king’s iouiu ii “and all that he put ill auictoritie under huin”—thc sord
“1w” should in fat t read “be,’ \hile p st a small error of transci iption (shich occurs
twice on p. 3 1) it itonetlieless carries enormous tproto—1 Iohbesian significance.
(ranmer’s use of “he instead of “he” suggests that it is not the sovereigns will
that sets those in autliorit under him, but rather draws attention to the ontologi—
cal givenness of their hierarchical suhordination—”ahl that he put in auctoritie”—
it is not that the king who puts them there. but that they are there in the divinely
given orciem’ of things, duiI’ subordinated to their sovereign.
That liturgy anti, through its hermeneutical influence, literature had ati influ
ence on the making of Protestant England there call he no doubt, Roseiidale makes
a compelling case in this excellent and highly discerning monograph.
‘
FOrm nrc Kirby
McGill University
What Have They Done to the Bible?: A History of Modern Biblical
Interpretation
John Sandys-Wunsch
Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005, xx + 378 p.
What Have The Done to the Bible?: .1 History 01 Modern Biblical Jn(erJnetation is author
John Sandvs-Wunsch’s ambitious attempt to explain the transformation that occurred
within biblical exegesis during the modern period. Sandvs-Wunsch divides his text
into seven chapters and a short epilogue of personal reflection After an opening
chapter aimed at orienting a largely introductory audience to the field of biblical
exegesis, Sandvs-Wunsch proceeds to con sicier first, the broader historical, social and
intellectual context, and second, specific developments in biblical interpretation.
within six separate periods of history, roughly between the years 1430—1900.
In chapters 2 and 3, Sandys-Wunsch examines the state of biblical interpre
tation during the Renaissance (1430—1600), and the Baroque period (1600—60),
He concludes that during this time, biblical exegetes concerned themselves pri
manly with the tasks of lower—criticism, such as advances in philology, comparing
and removing errors from manuscripts, and the production of more accurate
translations, Next, in chapters 4, 3, and 6, he explains that it was not until the early
Enlightenment period (1660—1700) with figures like B. Spinoza and
J. Le Cierc,
and more importantly in the eighteenth century, with ‘thinkers such as H. S.
Reimarus, J. S. Semler, C. E. lessing. J. C. Herder, anti
J. C. Eichhorn, that the
iaçacie of biblical autborit began to collapse nuclei’ the weight of primarily. Ger
man higher—criticism. Sanclvs—’uVunsch goes to great lengths to illustrate that dun—
nig the 18th centur, the rising prominence of history and reason as arbiters of truth
hegan to seriously challenge the privileged place that the Bible previously held.
not oiilx among Biblical scholars. l;t also s ithiii the s icier sphere of Western
kui opean civilization,
.